Treat others with basic decency. No personal attacks, shill accusations, hate-speech, flaming, baiting, trolling, witch-hunting, or unsubstantiated accusations. Threats of violence will result in a ban. More Info.

Do not post users' personal information.

Users who violate this rule will be banned on sight. Witch-hunting and giving out private personal details of other people can result in unexpected and potentially serious consequences for the individual targeted. More Info.

Vote based on quality, not opinion.

Political discussion requires varied opinions. Well written and interesting content can be worthwhile, even if you disagree with it. Downvote only if you think a comment/post does not contribute to the thread it is posted in or if it is off-topic in /r/politics. More Info.

Do not manipulate comments and posts via group voting.

Manipulating comments and posts via group voting is against reddit TOS. More Info.

Your headline must be comprised only of the exact copied and pasted headline of the article. More Info.

Submissions must be an original source.

An article must contain significant analysis and original content--not just a few links of text among chunks of copy and pasted material. Content is considered rehosted when a publication takes the majority of their content from another website and reposts it in order to get the traffic and collect ad revenue. More Info.

Articles must be written in English

An article must be primarily written in English for us to be able to moderate it and enforce our rules in a fair and unbiased manner. More Info.

Spam is bad!

If 33% or more of your submissions are from a single website, you will be banned as a spammer. More Info.

The ALL CAPS and 'Breaking' rule is applied even when the actual title of the article is in all caps or contains the word 'Breaking'. This rule may be applied to other single word declarative and/or sensational expressions, such as 'EXCLUSIVE:' or 'HOT:'. More Info.

But besides being intelligent, in touch with people, she inspires people, unafraid to call out the powers that be, knows economics and stands up for the middle class. Besides all that she offers nothing...

She's honest and she holds the same values on the economy, the role of the federal government & social issues as most progressives. Unlike Obama, she knows that being a center-to-right leader doesn't get policies passed.

I dunno. Elizabeth Warren may have a firm command of the issues and a record of advocating for the economic interests of people other than members of the financial oligarchy ... but are you sure you wouldn't rather have a Senator who drives a truck and runs commercials about how much he likes sports?

You gotta know she's a serious candidate for this reason...Republicans LOATHE this woman!

I mentioned her as a possible 2016 candidate on another message board and they LOST...THEIR...SHIT! "She's got nothing!" "She's worthless!" "She won't win anything!" I've seen such bile thrown at the President before, but a candidate for Senate that's never held public office? Holy shit, they already see this freight train coming.

It's because she threatens the current situation of corporations running the government and the country (basically having hijacked it over the past 30 years) and the republicans sycophants will not stand for anyone who threatens the current social atmosphere of the rich ruling the poor and destroying the middle class.

Republicans are a group of people who would literally sink to the bottom of the ocean on a ship rather than get into a lifeboat along side of democrats. You know, because they might be gay, or black or women or poor.

Ironically, there is a huge lot of republicans who are very poor, there are republican women, republican blacks and republican gays.

Classic self-loathers. It's a shame. It's proof positive that these people are ignorant beyond belief and brainwashed to a certain degree by the narrative they let the media (ahem, Fox News) into their minds.

Classic self-loathers. It's a shame. It's proof positive that these people are ignorant beyond belief and brainwashed to a certain degree by the narrative they let the media (ahem, Fox News) into their minds.

As a stern anti-federalist who was raised by a Republican mother and a Democrat father-- shit talking points like this have more to do with Republicans at the ground level hating the left than any racism or bigotry. There is a lot of xenophobia that shouldn't be there in the GOP. But there's a lot more of people just wanting a lower tax burden so that they can get by. A lot of seeing their income tax bills, their property tax es, and how little good it does. A lot of obvious cronyism in government and wanting to get rid of the ability of governments to hand out special favors.

The reason I hate the GOP is because these are all fairly understandable things to want, and the party leadership has done jack shit to solve those problems, instead framing a narrative about homosexuality and terrorism.

There's at MOST ten thousand truly evil people in the Republican party. And most of them are at the top, which is the source of a lot of our problems. But continuing to insult the intelligence of the other ~seventy million Republicans in this country is not going to fix that. Continuing to insist that the only narrative that can actually be used to examine the world is the class-warfare structure of progressive politics is not going to fix that.

It's going to make the seventy million hate you more, and reinforce that "Us V. Them" mentality, and convince them to vote in more of the corrupt leaders that have sold them out while talking a good talk. So for the love of all things sacred, quit caricaturing the single largest voting bloc in the country as evil. Because you're making everything broken in this country just the slightest bit harder to fix when you do.

The problem is those people who say they want low taxes in one breath go on to say they admire Reagan completely oblivious the the fact that those big tax cuts immediately created and out of control national deficit.

I once believe the GOP had elements that truly stood for a balance budget, but they don't because they only believe in cuts and entirely ignore the reality that Reagan and Bush's administrations we piled on massive debt.

Talk about low taxes and not doing the math is just not a real platform. It should have been apparent back in Reagan's administration that trickle down economics was bullshit, you can't cut taxes and keep spending on military like it's wartime ALL the time.

I have yet to meet a single republican than can explain how lower taxes in a time of high public debt makes any sense and that's a cornerstone of the platform. I'm still a registered Republican, from back when I thought you guys actually might balance the budget in my naive youth, but I can see it's a lie and it's certain not just your leaders. It's lies pushed down from the conservative and religious media over the years and ingrained into the culture. It's hate for liberals and minorities often along with economic fallacies about the magic of low taxes and how we don't need social programs. Once you get a grip on economics AND the history of the worlds governments you can many things that have made the world great have been major investments initiated by government spending. It's a simple fact that private corporations will only take on so much risk and thus are ALWAYS looking for the best short term investment. If they happen to get a long term investment out of it, that's great, but the basis of doing business for most corporations is a an immediate need for profit, and ideally the most profit possible.

That type of investment mentality does not build infrastructure like the intercontinental railroad or the creation of interstate highways, it doesn't push mankind to the moon and invent new industries in the process, it doesn't require workers rights or even require keeping the industry withing the United States. History clearly shows we've made massive gains on government projects which the private industry might not accomplish for another 100 years and that's ONLY if risk falls and there is some return. Private industry will likely still not have landed a person on the moon in 2069, 100 years later. The act itself has little fiscal return, but it created industries that went on to dominate the world and entirely change life as we knew it. It's still pretty awe inspiring, but at the time it must have felt pretty damn good to be an American.

The problem isn't your leaders or some of you are racists. It's that you aren't offering and real ideas or solutions. You're presenting demands with little logic behind them. We WANT low taxes, AND high military spending and to ignore the national debt AND to ignore climate change and peak oil. You guys are so owned right down to your core party by corporations, and have been for so long, you basic rational has been lost. You can't see media monopolies for the massive problem they are. You can't see that us for profit health insurance simply costs too much for what you get. That means you even lost touch with the basic rules of capitalism. Capitalism does not work without strong anti monopoly regulation. How do the GOP ideals fit at all with this well known fact of economics?

Teddy Roosevelt was a conservative. Republican's today are morons arguing idiotic talking points delivered to them by corporations. You basically lost the two good parts of the party, non-interventionalism and regulation on corporations. It was the rational man's party, even the party of the scientific mind at one point.

When FDR united the middle class it crushed the GOP, and that really was the beginning of the end of conservatism in the Republican party. After FDR's programs didn't spiral into debt and having workers rights and a simple social safety net proved to grow the middle glass the GOP remained a minority party for decades. Occasionally winning Presidency, but limited in any real impact on the US. The GOP saw the religious demographics as a way to revive their party and made the mistake of infusing fundamental religious beliefs into this rational/businessman's conservative party. To keep the religious demographics you have to spit in the face of this rational mans party view and bow to radical religious nutjobs. So, to keep the businessman you have to give up your conservative views on corporate regulations and anti-monopoly laws.

You are left a party that cannot launch new ideas or change because you're try to appeal to two opposing forces. The corporatists don't want traditional family values or censorship or even FDA regulations for that matter. The religious people don't want drugs and sex on tv, but that shit sells. They don't want fast change and science, but our economy is built on it. The party is a joke. You're never going to balance the budget because you can't cut military and now you idiots can't even raise taxes. At least Bush Sr. raised taxes to pay for his war, but after that you went right back to SPEND without limits with the Bush administration.

The GOP calls the Dems the tax and spend party, but FUCK that's a lot better than the charge and spend party. The GOP doesn't raise revenue to pay for it's spending it just charges it to the public debt and then asks for even lower taxes. That is INSANE logic. It's not maybe right. It's not well looking back through history you can see where tax breaks were used to pay off this massive public debt which was actually created due to tax breaks. That is some circular retard logic if I've ever heard it. The GOP has been bought and owned for decades now and that means the lies have trickled down to your everyday working Joe. It's sad how many of you think you know about politics and truly have no fucking clue but shit you've heard the media and your parents say.

I think you summed it up pretty well. Probably the most important thing to take away from all of this is that if we're going to get anything done we have to negotiate with the people who are genuine Republicans, those who do not agree with this current warped version of the party. We also need to help others understand that they are voting against their interests. Education and compromise are the only way we can solve our problems, it's always been that way.

Also we have to remember that the Democrats aren't entirely faultless either. Why do you think no one has been held accountable for the banking crisis? The Democrats are in bed with corporations just as much as the Republicans. We need campaign finance reform if anything is ever going to get done in Washington.

A part of me blames the Republican propaganda machine that has reached out to the poor and middle class and successfully fooled them into thinking the Republican party base is not in actually catering to the higher echelons of society.

It would be so much easier if more people declared themselves independents and looked at each candidate on both sides with a critical eye. Instead of buying into the propaganda that 'you're either with us, or against us'.

agree with your sentiments but corporations, or at least the fat cats who run them, have ruled our nation from its inception. From the Federalists to the Railroad Barons, to the Banking moguls of today, our nation has been ruled by the rich for a very long time.

"There is no record of Gandhi saying this. A close variant of the quotation first appears in a 1918 US trade union address by Nicholas Klein:
And, my friends, in this story you have a history of this entire movement. First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you. And that, is what is going to happen to the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America. "

This is very true. And Brown is still reasonably popular last time I checked.

However he was elected by <5% during a wave election against a candidate that couldn't seem to take a single step without tripping over her feet (she called Curt Shilling a Yankees fan for God's sake). This time around the enthusiasm gap has vanished, if not turned around and he's up against a candidate that seems to have the ability to puts stars in her base's eyes.

IMO, it's probably going to be one of those elections that rides on the coattails of the Presidential race.

It's true in American politics. You always know the strength of a Dem candidate or idea when the GOP and corporate money rallies against it.

They don't spend that money for nothing folks. Follow the money.. if it's attacking National Health Care it's because the GOP knows if it passes the people will love it and there is no going back (just like in every other nation that has enacted it). The GOP knows higher taxes on the rich won't destroy the economy and raise unemployment. They can read history books and most of them know taxes are quite low already. It's just the line of bullshit they find most easy to sell.

Upvoting a pun thread is actually one of the least disruptive ways to interact with a political discussion. The entire pun thread can be very easily hidden by simply hitting the minus button to the left of the first post.

I appreciate your concern for the cultural standards of Reddit, but you're picking the wrong hill to die on.

Mormon missionaries go all over the world and they do manage to convert people when they're there. I've met Chilean and French Guianese Mormons. And Romney did spend two years in France trying to convert people.

Here's my hope...her success will spark others who want to see a return to a real democratic republic throw their hats into the ring. We NEED pissed off, intelligent, active Americans who will stand up and risk being ridiculed to do the right thing for their country.

I am a massive Warren fan (met her once too!), but I really want her to stay in the Senate for a good, long while. She really is focused on one issue: the middle class, and the use of money by the powerful to rig the economic game in their own favor. As a senator she'll be voting all sorts of issues. But she can really focus and be a spokeswoman for one of the major issues of the day.

Presidents have to tackle all issues, all the same time, in between kissing every baby between the Atlantic and the Pacific. Being president would dilute Warren's message.

I say, get her into the Senate, and then give Sen. Warren and Sen. Sanders the biggest megaphones we can find.

Within the BO camp they had a sense of urgency in terms of weighing his relative inexperience as a statesman (less of a track record on controversial votes) vs. a closing window of opportunity. He obviously decided to strike while the iron was hot, when he was relevant and had a buzz. The same will be for Warren. The less of a body of work she has in the Senate, the easier she gets to position herself as an outsider and reformer should the US electorate be yearning for that in 2016, 2020, or beyond.

Glad to see Elizabeth Warren doing so well. In terms of economic and social issues I think she is the best, although I am not the biggest fan of her foreign policy views (although they could get a lot worst)

It's like refurbishing your house. You get the right person to do the bathroom, the right person to do the kitchen, the right person to do the roof, the right person to do the bla bla bla. You can't find someone who can do everything the way you want it, so you find the right person for each job. Eventually your house is pretty damned nice.

I never looked into Warren's foreign policy views, but I'm not surprised. In fact, I expected this. She wouldn't be able to call herself a Democrat otherwise.

People who have a view of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict that's in line with the international consensus, international law, and the human rights organizations, might be able to find a home in the Green Party, but in mainstream politics, you're considered unviable. Unfortunate as it is.

It's "a historic". Fuck all those folks who try to sound all uppity and enlightened by saying "an istoric" or writing "an historic". If it's actually a historic moment, take the time to pronounce the H to emphasize the importance of the moment.

There are many "loan" words or names derived from other languages that we pronounce as they were initially intended. Herb, Tortilla, Arkansas, Illinois, coup d'etat, etc. Also, many of the spelling differences between British and American English are due to the fact that many British spellings were influenced by french (colour, behaviour), as well as the British pronunciation of 'schedule.' Just minor differences, no big deal.

New England Republicans aren't like most of the others. They're more fiscally conservative than anything else. Scott Brown is noted for being one of the key votes allowing DADT repeal, along with fellow NE Republicans Collins and Snowe. He fits in well with many Massachusetts voters.

Mass is strange. Scott Brown speaks to a high portion of voting individuals who are married, centrist, and not particularly politically charged. To the people living in Mass, seeing the masses of liberal students representing, to the, what Democrats are (young, brash, and loud), they chose NOT that rather than actively choosing Brown.

It was interesting to live there and watch it. I voted against Brown, but of those students who deter older voters, I was one of the only ones who actually made it to the polls. That is inevitably the problem.

Massachusetts isn't liberal as much as it is independent and progressive. The entire western half is primarily republican in addition to areas south of Boston, and the cape. the only true liberal bastion is Boston itself which is of course liberal.

Also Scott brown cares and supports a large amount of ideas that Massachusetts supports and Elizabeth Warren is an unknown entity. The fact is no one really does know what or how she will go. she would have been better off starting as a congresswomen or state legislature.

This is a real shame. The woman who ran against her for the primary was a decent ordinary citizen who had the spine to oppose endless wars.

Warren is another bullshit politician who won't do shit to change the country. Her most 'radical' plank is her call for reinstating Glass-Stegall, which would do little to stem the causes of the financial crisis (the biggest losses, such as Bear Sterns, Lehman Bros, etc. were all investment banks to begin with, not commercial banks acting as investment banks. Reinstating G-S might have saved Citi, but the fundamentals wouldn't change).

That, and Elizabeth Warren is pretty explicitly open to war with Iran. In that sense, she's just as bad as most Republicans in the Senate.

I'm a liberal, but I agree there's very few subreddits or discussions that challenge leftist ideals. It's worrying that some here really do see Reddit as a balanced source of information, and get all their news from r/politics...it's really just Fox News for the left.

Wikipedia: Warren, who does not meet the U.S. Department of Labor definition of "Native American," said that she provided the information that she was a Native American to University of Pennsylvania and Harvard faculty in conversations after she was hired but denied that "there was [any] reporting for this".

More problematic: after being challenged on the subject, she acted as if there was no reason to question her on the subject. Claimed it was sexism to wonder how a 31/32 non-Cherokee could be listed by HARVARD (where the smart people are) as a Native American. Meanwhile, ironically, Dems circle the wagon to protect her from the charges of disingenuously taking advantage of that designation.

That anyone would give her a pass on this has to be due to ideological blindness.

Please state the "U.S. Department of Labor definition of Native American"

Bill John Baker, the current Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation has 1/32 "blood quantum". He is not the first Principal Chief with 1/32 either, William Wayne Keeler was also 1/32. Please explain your qualifications to assert that neither of these Cherokee Chiefs are real indians.

She could have lied her ass off about it and I'd still vote for her over Brown. Racial questions and considerations for applicants are ridiculous imo. I don't and would never blame anyone for taking advantage of such a stupid system of rewards and quotas. It's pretty hilarious to listen to right-wingers become furious over an apparent breach of the sanctity of affirmative action.

It's as much Harvard's responsibility to verify or question her claim as it was apparently her responsibility to know the arcane government agency definition by which one can claim to be of a certain race.

Extremists complain about 'gotcha' journalism, but this isn't even journalism nor is it 'gotcha', its just a distraction. Does it say much about her that she was unaware of the US DOL definition of 'Native American', whether according to the US government her situation qualified as 'Native American', or that she thought it was an odd thing to bring up 20 years after the fact? Does it change her policy positions? Why can't politicians run on their platforms rather than on distractions like this bullshit?

I'd factor it into the other things I know about her, but wouldn't consider it a strong negative. What makes you think it's a strong negative?

Alright. Someone came in at the last minute to do what? Make a last half assed point? OMG Warren has a lot of money from being out for a long time, no shit & presenting a message that people felt was honest & they wanted to hear & so...they gave her money. Your point?

Actually not a damn point at all.

So, as far as 'keeping it classy' If by classy you mean partisan manipulative, ya that's so Fox classy of you.

Otherwise take my fucking downvote because you are not classy or making a point just being a partisan bullshitter.